Jump to content

Rate the last film you watched out of 5


Recommended Posts

The Midnight Sky 

3/5

 

Now I was fairly well served when I watched it on Christmas evening, but I quite enjoyed it. It looks lovely, especially the in space parts. Not sure how well the story would stand up to closer scrutiny, (like I say I was full of liquid Christmas cheer) but I don't really get the dissing it's been getting. I do love pretty much anything space or sci-fi though, so my tolerance level is set accordingly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Palm Springs (2020)

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9484998/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_1

 

IMDB spiel:When carefree Nyles and reluctant maid of honor Sarah have a chance encounter at a Palm Springs wedding, things get complicated as they are unable to escape the venue, themselves, or each other.

 

Groundhog day-esque  comedy starring Samberg and Christina Milotti with a typically decent turn from J.K Simmons as well. Samberg basically just plays Jake Peralta from Brooklyn 99 without the hassle  of a job to motivate him (which is not a bad thing per se)and Milotti effectively drives the story as she tries to escape their scenario.  Won't go into too much detail but there's some good sequences, a few laughs and it's a nice, easy watch. Existential questions are raised and fairly easily answered, ignored or drowned in substance or alcohol abuse. So just like real life.

 

3.5/5

Link to post
Share on other sites

A few great docs I’ve seen lately...

 

I Called Him Morgan - 5/5 (Netflix)

 

Splendid documentary with unbelievable source material about the life and murder of legendary jazz trumpeter Lee Morgan, and wife Helen Morgan who was his defining influence. Perfect really.

 

Wild Combination: A Portrait of Arthur Russell - 5/5 (Prime)

 

Beautiful piece of film about a beautiful subject, seminal avant-garde musician Arthur Russell, whose work during New York’s disco heyday is timeless. I’d had a few glasses of wine so the end of this slayed me, so sad.

 

Berlin Bouncers - 4/5 (Prime)

 

Terrific doc about - wait for it! - nightclub bouncers in Berlin, with three great characters giving the stories of their lives and life on the door since the fall of the wall.


 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/12/2020 at 13:47, Fierce Poodle said:

Eh? She’s Kristen Stewart’s girlfriend!

 

Edit: I’m talking bollocks clearly. She did look like Zooey though, although I’d probably had too much mulled wine by that point :lol:

 

On 13/12/2020 at 16:53, ZOK said:

Glüey Deschanel.


It really is superb.

 

1) You thought she looked like Zooey Deschanel, because you had drunk too much mulled wine, at Christmas.

2) Gluhwein, or glühwein, is the German term for mulled wine, often drunk at Christmas.

3) ‘Glu’ sounds like ‘Zoo’ (at Christmas), so ‘Gluey’ sounds like ‘Zooey’ (also at Christmas).

4) I wrote ‘Glüey Deschanel’, and won the forum - at Christmas.

 

There is no need to thank me, honestly!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

 

Watched this last night, another really good one, a smaller scale story that does a lot of heavy lifting in terms of character development of the main trio. Also some really excellent use of time travel. 

 

4/5

 

 

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

 

This was the first of the "big" books to be adapted, but the running time is only five minutes longer than the first film. With so many new characters introduced the film is spread somewhat thin. It has some nice set pieces, and some nods to the main trio starting to come of age, but they're just nods. The film moves at the breakneck pace of a Michael Bay movie, there's no room for the characters to breathe. That said, it does set up the return of Voldemort reasonably well, but it definitely feels rushed.

 

3/5

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Thor said:

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

 

This was the first of the "big" books to be adapted, but the running time is only five minutes longer than the first film. With so many new characters introduced the film is spread somewhat thin. It has some nice set pieces, and some nods to the main trio starting to come of age, but they're just nods. The film moves at the breakneck pace of a Michael Bay movie, there's no room for the characters to breathe. That said, it does set up the return of Voldemort reasonably well, but it definitely feels rushed.

 

3/5

 

Really felt this took a step into visual blandness and had a tv-esque aesthetic at the time compared to Azkabhan. Not sure if that bares out now but I haven't been back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rewatches

 

Tenet 2/5 - 5/2

Somebody rescue Chris Nolan please.

 

Wolfwalkers 5/5

Even better the second time. Cromwell a proper bast. Shame it'll lose out Oscar-wise to..

 

Sooooooooouul 4/5

..which will win because America. Typical Pixar excellence visually. Nice to see a black cast but shame it wasn't specifically a black story. Kindof a middle-aged Inside-Out. Nice of Disney to make it available for free on D+ though, instead of 'doing a Mulan'.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Festoon said:

 

Really felt this took a step into visual blandness and had a tv-esque aesthetic at the time compared to Azkabhan. Not sure if that bares out now but I haven't been back.

It is a very "grey" movie. Visually it looks a lot like Arrival, which was deliberately filmed and colour graded to look like "a really bad Tuesday".  But yes, there's a distinct lack of colour, which actually worked for Prisoner of Azkaban, but didn't for Goblet of Fire.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, teddymeow said:

Murder on the Orient Express (1974)

 

An absolutely brilliant cast and a batshit crazy portrayal of Poorly by Albert Finney.

 

4 moustache twirls / 5

 

sounds better than the Appointment with Death (1988) I watched the other day. Sure, Poirot is Usintov (and quite possibly vice versa), but no one's heart is in it. Except maybe Jenny Seagrove. And it's directed by Michael Winner, which shows. 2/5

Link to post
Share on other sites

Death on the Nile is on BBC 2 right now.

 

I've had my 12 week old daughter asleep on me since Murder on the Orient Express started at 14.10.

 

I've had cups of tea made for me and the wife has made profiteroles from scratch!

 

This has been a fantastic bank holiday!! :wub:

Link to post
Share on other sites

finally got round to watching The Void

....what a film! with great practical effects and cinematography. rotten tomatoes sums it up - "The Void offers a nostalgic rush for fans of low-budget 1980s horror -- and legitimate thrills for hardcore genre enthusiasts of all ages." 4.5/5

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nerve (2016)

 

There’s nothing new here - young people seeking affirmation and popularity through social media, exploring boundaries of acceptability and anonymity, the dangers of the volume of personal data freely available online, etc. However, I found it entirely watchable, with some fairly nice shots at times, and a reasonable soundtrack. Enjoyable nonsense - ‘Movies with limited time on Prime’ delivers again, I reckon.

 

3/5

Link to post
Share on other sites

Solo (2018)

 

Went into this expecting the worst but my wife and I were pleasantly surprised. It's flawed (could've done without some of the on the nose references and the gravity well creature- CG nonsense for the sake of spectacle) but I liked it a lot more than anything from the last trilogy and preferred it to Rogue One.

 

3/5.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, 5R7 said:

finally got round to watching The Void

....what a film! with great practical effects and cinematography. rotten tomatoes sums it up - "The Void offers a nostalgic rush for fans of low-budget 1980s horror -- and legitimate thrills for hardcore genre enthusiasts of all ages." 4.5/5

It's a masterpiece. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dracula (1931 - Lugosi) 4/5

Still a masterpiece after all this time... I am a great fan of the Dracula mythos and the various adaptations over the years and I have seen most of them. What I find especially interesting is that despite all of these attempts noone has quite managed to capture the original novel correctly, a testament to it. This original 1931 adaptation is stagey as it was an adaptation of a stageplay and it was in the early days of the talkies so sound production was not great, lots of silence and uncertain acting performances. Lugosi himself is a great Dracula despite lacking the stature of other actors - altho stagey you still get the exotic european nature of the count as well as the menace within him. It is hamstrung by its need to censor anything approaching what we would regard as horror - noone has fangs for instance, noone can be seen actually biting a neck and there is no blood. However the production design of the castle entrance hall and the atmosphere in general is perfect far outstripping many adaptations. The sets and locations are fantastic and we are treated to the best Renfield there ever was and probably ever will be and Van Helsing is serviceable. It messes with the story due to running time constraints (the film is 75 minutes long!) but I still think it is one of the best version you can get - IF you can see past the trappings of time regarding a film made in 1931.

 

The reason I rewatched this was because of this next film!

 

Dracula Dead and Loving It (Leslie Neilsen) 1/5

It was terrible (definite 1/5!) but fascinating for many many nerdy reasons. The first 15-20 mins raised a chuckle or two and then it just turned into a complete drudge - dreary slapstick with off timing and poor script. It was as if the scriptwriters wanted to write a  beat for beat pastiche of the Bela Lugosi original but got bored after 15 mins and then wrote a load of crap.

 

I rewatched the 1931 Universal Dracula as a result and indeed the first 15 mins of Dracula Dead and Loving it  are an homage with "funny" bits.

 

They just didn't commit to it and didn't have the talent to pull it off even if they had. Interestingly listening to the Director's commentary (oh yes!!!) it is obvious Mel Brooks had very little knowledge of the source and trusted the scriptwriting duo instead. He is a spectacularly lazy director and for every "The Producers" or "young Frankenstein" there is a stinker like "Dracula Dead and Loving it" in the wings. I am not a fan of his.

 

Dracula (1974 - Jack Palance) 2/5

And when I was watching the above films I recalled that there were some holes in the list of Dracula adaptations I had seen including this 1974 tv movie. Palance is miscast and stiff. It is an odd performance that switches between commanding menacing evil and ridiculous OTT wooden acting. The adaptation itself is not faithful but not a bad attempt however the supporting cast are utterly forgettable. The set design is either budget restricted or just woeful - the film appears to have been shot in a series of stately homes regardless of whether we are in Transylvania or England - I started to think of it as the National Trust adaptation of Dracula by the end - his coffin is bizarrely located in such a way I expected a velvet rope round it and a retired NT volunteer giving out information on the room and Dracula.

 

 

 

Dawn of the Dead Original Cut 5/5

Dawn of the Dead Argento "european" Cut 4/5

Dawn of the Dead "Director's" Cannes Cut 4/5

 

One of the best zombie films ever made it is as simple as that. I recently got the UHD set which is ridiculously expensive but has a wonderful package of extras. I am a bit of a Romero nerd/fan so buying it was a no brainer whereas for the more casual zombie fan I would suggest just buying the normal bluray of the theatrical cut. Saying that it was a delight to see the Argento cut in something other than potato-vision. I have only seen it as a poor quality print transfer to DVD previously with colour timing completely out etc so it was hard to judge it fairly.

 

Despite my 5/5 this is not my favourite Romero zombie film, that accolade goes to the under appreciated Day of the Dead. A film crippled by its budget and yet it still spins out a great story.

 

As for the three cuts - well the latter is of course NOT a director's cut as we understand them now, it was the first cut put together by Romero before the whole thing was tightened up. Romero's vision (Theatrical) is the best version I believe although I know some do prefer Argento's more visceral take on the material. My issues with the other cuts is that the pacing is wrong in both versions and only the theatrical gets it spot on. Argento uses almost every action shot he can and ditches some of the slower paced scenes (shortening the truck section for example) - this is a mistake as those slower paced sections give the film its depth and give it time to breathe. The original cut for Cannes is rough round the edges and too flabby.

 

 

 

EDIT - Apologies I just scanned back through the thread and realised my post might not be quite in the spirit - I need to be snappier :D. I have been looking for an outlet for my nerdy film loving side (I used to write DVD reviews for a site maaaaaany years ago) and I might have gotten over enthusiastic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Clipper said:

Dracula (1931 - Lugosi) 4/5

Still a masterpiece after all this time... I am a great fan of the Dracula mythos and the various adaptations over the years and I have seen most of them. What I find especially interesting is that despite all of these attempts noone has quite managed to capture the original novel correctly, a testament to it. This original 1931 adaptation is stagey as it was an adaptation of a stageplay and it was in the early days of the talkies so sound production was not great, lots of silence and uncertain acting performances. Lugosi himself is a great Dracula despite lacking the stature of other actors - altho stagey you still get the exotic european nature of the count as well as the menace within him. It is hamstrung by its need to censor anything approaching what we would regard as horror - noone has fangs for instance, noone can be seen actually biting a neck and there is no blood. However the production design of the castle entrance hall and the atmosphere in general is perfect far outstripping many adaptations. The sets and locations are fantastic and we are treated to the best Renfield there ever was and probably ever will be and Van Helsing is serviceable. It messes with the story due to running time constraints (the film is 75 minutes long!) but I still think it is one of the best version you can get - IF you can see past the trappings of time regarding a film made in 1931.


How would you rate the Spanish version? I recall Kermode preferring it- I've seen neither but I'd like watch Lugosi's after reading your review.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DeciderVT said:


How would you rate the Spanish version? I recall Kermode preferring it- I've seen neither but I'd like watch Lugosi's after reading your review.

I'll cover your second point first (as my response to your first point is lengthy - I always needed a good editor!). Lugosi's Dracula is the birth of the character on the screen and his performance informs pretty much all representations since, both serious and comedic. "The children of the night - what music they make" still makes me smile but there is an intensity of delivery that makes it stand the test of time... Oldman swallowed the line horribly in the 92 version so despite Lugosi's overacting at times he made the part his own. However this is a film of its time, made in 1931 it feels as if it could be a silent film or made 10 years earlier! Indeed for stretches there are weird (to us) silences, the acting is variable and the staging is "stagey". Frankenstein was released the same year and feels a more modern film and only two years later we had King Kong which looks like another era in terms of sound and cinematography etc... so be warned :D

 

I have read a few opinions of reviewers and historians on the spanish version. I don't agree that it is better... it is different. Dracula and Renfield are the strongest parts of the Lugosi version and the weakest parts of the Spanish version. I believe the Renfield in the 1931 Dracula is untouchable in terms of performance.

 

The running time is 1hr 45 ish a good half an hour longer than the US version so it can feel flabbier but also the story and characters have more room to live.

 

Dracula is played by a decent actor but he doesn't have the presence of Lugosi or the underlying menace or nuance - whilst you can accuse Lugosi of overacting at times (as did many actors in the 1930s when you apply modern standards) he had an intensity about him and a brooding undercurrent of evil. You get the impression with Lugosi's depiction, more than most Dracula's ever, that there is a wafer thin veneer of the gentleman Count that is just covering the evil animal beneath the mask. Vampires are often romaniticised in fiction but Stoker's vision was of an undead beast beneath the surface full of malevolence.

 

The way in which the Spanish version is better however is in its technical ability and its usage of the two main women.

 

Technically the Lugosi version is "safe" and feels OLD with the camera simply locked from shot to shot - production design is superb but the cinematography was more like a silent film and lacked much ambition. The spanish version saw the camera move and track way more often - the reveal of Renfield's warm inviting quarters in castle Dracula being a pulled shot gradually revealing the room instead of the fixed focus shots in the US version.

 

Finally the Spanish version makes much better use of the two main women and the 2nd half of the film is more fleshed out as a result. In the US version Mina and Lucy are treated as mannequins to be wheeled between scenes, they are impeccably dressed but look untouchable and there is very little life in them when it comes to the dialogue and plot. In the Spanish version they are dressed slightly more provocatively (for 1931) which gives them a touch more life and realism. the majority of the extra 30 mins in the Spanish version are in the 2nd half of the film and flesh out Eva (Mina) and give her much more to do. The film becomes, at times, more about her struggle whereas the US version is about Dracula and the women are just plot devices to move things along.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

 

Manages to achieve what Goblet of Fire failed to do: character development. And in a shorter runtime even. This is another of the series that's just a good film in its own right, not just as part of the series. 

 

4/5

Link to post
Share on other sites

Soul - 3/5. It's not a bad film but I didn't like the middle and I felt the ending lacked punch and heart.  It's by no means a bad film but it's not my film.

 

Onwards - Not quite a 5/5 but a high 4/5.  I liked the premise and had genuine chuckles in a lot of places where as I don't remember a single laugh in soul at all.  Not a 5 out of 5 because the characters start out too stereotyped.  I think that's planned because of the setting but it didn't sit right with me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.